Message in a Bottle: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Wine-Bottle Design in Capturing Consumer Attention
Message in a Bottle: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Wine-Bottle Design in Capturing Consumer...
Ozturk, Emel;Kilic, Busra;Cubero Dudinskaya, Emilia;Naspetti, Simona;Solfanelli, Francesco;Zanoli, Raffaele
2023-04-19 00:00:00
beverages Article Message in a Bottle: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Wine-Bottle Design in Capturing Consumer Attention 1 1 1 2 1 Emel Ozturk , Busra Kilic , Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya , Simona Naspetti , Francesco Solfanelli 1 , and Raffaele Zanoli * Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy Department of Materials, Environmental Sciences and Urban Planning (SIMAU), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy * Correspondence: zanoli@agrecon.univpm.it; Tel.: +39-07-1220-4929 Abstract: This study aims to investigate the influence of wine-bottle design and the position of labels on consumers’ visual attention in digital contexts. Two within-subjects experiments combined with implicit eye-tracking measures were implemented in Italy. The visual attention of twenty-four participants was measured using areas of interest metrics while being asked to view two differently shaped bottles in three orientations. Subsequently, four examples of each bottle type were displayed, positioning an organic logo in different areas. Attention and interest measures were captured and analysed using a factorial repeated-measures ANOVA. The results show that the shoulder is the bottle’s first and most fixated part. Significant differences in participants’ attention and interest were found according to the interaction of bottle type and bottle part, as well as bottle part and orientation. Furthermore, exploring the inclusion of an organic logo on different bottle parts provided consistent results. Wine producers and marketers could benefit from bottle anatomy and morphology to identify the best place to display essential information to capture the consumer ’s visual attention and interest. Keywords: consumer research; packaging design; logo; e-commerce; eye tracking; digital marketing Citation: Ozturk, E.; Kilic, B.; Cubero Dudinskaya, E.; Naspetti, S.; Solfanelli, F.; Zanoli, R. Message in a 1. Introduction Bottle: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Wine-Bottle Design in Online shopping in the European Union (EU) increased from 63% in 2016 to 74% in Capturing Consumer Attention. 2021 among internet users [1,2]. Online offers for wine have also grown [3]. The recent Beverages 2023, 9, 36. https:// boost in e-commerce activity due to the COVID-19 outbreak pushed wine sales from a doi.org/10.3390/beverages9020036 12% increase in 2019 to 43% in 2020 across sixteen key markets, including Italy [4,5]. In general, the online retail wine market is becoming a popular e-commerce niche, which Academic Editors: Gary J. Pickering in Italy deserves specific attention, as the country is a leading worldwide producer and and Christopher Taylor consumer of wine [6]. Received: 31 January 2023 While wine e-commerce is becoming increasingly popular, wine producers can ex- Revised: 1 April 2023 pand into new markets that might otherwise be unreachable [7,8]. Given the nature of Accepted: 14 April 2023 e-commerce, consumers cannot experience a wine’s intrinsic attributes and sensory qual- Published: 19 April 2023 ities [9] and must rely on information provided through the web [10,11]. Nevertheless, the mind needs some quality cues to quickly process the information received during the purchasing process [12]. Consumers rely on visual search cues, such as product and packaging (i.e., bottle and label) characteristics [13,14], as a risk mitigation strategy. In Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. wine e-commerce, this strategy is especially evident among inexperienced or uninformed Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. consumers [15]. This article is an open access article Studies focusing on the effects of bottle design on consumers’ visual attention are distributed under the terms and scarce. Although label information, colour, and shape symbolism in the packaging of conditions of the Creative Commons beverages have been addressed in the literature [16–18], no studies have focused on the Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ effects of bottle morphology and the different physical parts of a bottle on the consumer. 4.0/). Earlier research has indicated the significance of bottle attributes such as shape, size and Beverages 2023, 9, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages9020036 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/beverages Beverages 2023, 9, 36 2 of 17 colour, as these often help the consumer to identify and categorise the product [19,20]. While previous studies have shown that the orientation of beer bottles can impact consumer attention [21], there is a dearth of research exploring how the bottle morphology and orientation influence consumers’ perceptions concerning virtual depictions of wine bottles. Understanding which part of a bottle and what orientation has the most significant effect on consumers’ visual attention might help marketers decide to place the most relevant information in that area. Consequently, bottle manufacturers might differentiate their products based on the shape of the bottle part that captures the most consumer attention. In this context, the aims of the current study were twofold. The main objective was to investigate the role of wine bottles’ anatomical and morphological features on consumers’ visual attention in digital contexts. The secondary goal was to identify the most prominent bottle parts for labelling in different types of bottles and diverse orientations [21]. To achieve these objectives, the study employs an experimental research design with a repeated measure within-subsect design in combination with an eye-tracking device. Findings can aid in developing more effective marketing strategies for wine manufacturers. Conceptual Framework Product packaging plays a crucial role in helping consumers assess what kind of product they are about to purchase and its associated quality [22,23]. In the case of wine, bottling is essential for product quality purposes, such as containment, protection, and preservation [24–26], as well as for aesthetic reasons. Indeed, aesthetics increase consumer reaction times and preference over standardised packages in well-known brands, despite price differences [27]. As packaging influences consumer perception and product accep- tance [13], wine bottles must be appropriate for use in multiple contexts and as part of specific social rituals [28]. External visual stimuli and package design elements are crucial in capturing consumer attention [22,28,29]. In the literature, packaging design elements are classified into two main categories: visual and informational [30]. While the visual elements include the shape, size and graphics of the packaging, the informational elements consist of the product information from the packaging, e.g., labels. Label information has received great attention in previous research on visual attention as an informational element [28,31–33]. A recent study by Chamorro et al. [34] shows that the label has the biggest influence on consumer choice, followed by bottle type among diverse design elements of a wine bottle. While the front label, where information such as country of origin or brand name is presented, is considered very important as a first communication tool with the consumer, the back label refers to other information such as wine description [35]. In the online retailing context, products are presented as small images of wine bottles showing only the front side, which usually requires the customer to zoom in (or to click to expand and read the text) to read the information on the label [36]. This means that when consumers interact with the different wine bottle offers, the bottle labels are not immediately visible to them. Instead, bottle shape, colour, and size are the most relevant factors affecting consumer choice and attention [19,29,37]. The above framework encompasses most packaging design elements that impact consumer attention within consumer research. Understanding these elements and their impact on consumers can lead to effective design strategies that capture consumer attention in market research. Although bottle design and type in beverage packaging, especially for wine, has previously been explored [34], the role of wine-bottle anatomy and morphology as a consumer ’s visual attention driver has, until the present moment, mainly been ignored. Utilising the eye-tracking technique to explore consumers’ visual attention towards these elements and their interaction can yield valuable insights. This research gap presents an opportunity to investigate the influence of bottle type, bottle part and orientation on consumer attention. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 morphology as a consumer’s visual attention driver has, until the present moment, mainly been ignored. Utilising the eye-tracking technique to explore consumers’ visual attention towards these elements and their interaction can yield valuable insights. This research gap presents an opportunity to investigate the influence of bottle type, bottle part and orientation on consumer attention. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Experimental Design Beverages 2023, 9, 36 3 of 17 The study was conducted using a repeated-measures within-subjects experimental procedure in combination with an eye-tracking device. Within-subjects designs com- bined with eye-tracking devices are frequently used in consumer research on attention as 2. Materials and Methods a tool to determine whether visual stimuli are attended to or not [38,39]. In the present 2.1. Experimental Design study, two within-subjects experiments were conducted. The first experiment, a 2 × 4 × 3 The study was conducted using a repeated-measures within-subjects experimental mixed factorial design, measured consumers’ attention across two bottle types, four bot- procedure in combination with an eye-tracking device. Within-subjects designs combined with tle peye-tracking arts and three devices differen are frequently t bottle used orien in consumer tations. Th resear e sch econ on d attention experias men a tool t, a 2 × 4 design, to determine whether visual stimuli are attended to or not [38,39]. In the present study, measured consumer attention on two bottle types and on a logo placed on four different two within-subjects experiments were conducted. The first experiment, a 2 4 3 mixed parts of each bottle. In both cases, participants’ attention was the dependent variable, factorial design, measured consumers’ attention across two bottle types, four bottle parts captured through an eye-tracking device. and three different bottle orientations. The second experiment, a 2 4 design, measured consumer attention on two bottle types and on a logo placed on four different parts of each bottle. In both cases, participants’ attention was the dependent variable, captured through 2.2. Stimuli an eye-tracking device. ‘Bare’ bottle images without labels were chosen for the first experiment to avoid any att 2.2.en Stimuli tion bias on the labels or other complex visually processed elements. Since the aim of the ‘Bar study e’ bottle was re images lated without to bo labels ttle wer anato e chosen my and m for theorp first hology, experiment styl to ised avoid ima any ges (silhouettes) attention bias on the labels or other complex visually processed elements. Since the aim of each bottle were used to avoid any reflection, contrast and colour differences coming of the study was related to bottle anatomy and morphology, stylised images (silhouettes) from the actual photos, which may have impacted the visual attention of the participants. of each bottle were used to avoid any reflection, contrast and colour differences coming Specifically, two bottle models of the same volume (750 mL) commonly used in the from the actual photos, which may have impacted the visual attention of the participants. wine-bottling industry but different in design and shape were chosen for this study. The Specifically, two bottle models of the same volume (750 mL) commonly used in the wine- bottling industry but different in design and shape were chosen for this study. The bottles bottles differed in the design (anatomy and morphology) and proportions of their indi- differed in the design (anatomy and morphology) and proportions of their individual parts. vidual parts. While one bottle had a more extended shoulder and shorter body and heel, While one bottle had a more extended shoulder and shorter body and heel, the other had a the other had a shorter shoulder but a longer body and heel (Figure 1). shorter shoulder but a longer body and heel (Figure 1). Figure 1. Example of the area of interest in the two bottles’ silhouettes used in the study. Figure 1. Example of the area of interest in the two bottles’ silhouettes used in the study. Each bottle was divided into four equal-sized areas of interest (AOI) (Figure 1). AOIs were defined Each bo consi ttle dering was div bottle ided anatomy into four , and equa guidelines l-sized wer are eas suggested of intere accor st (AOI ding) to (Figure 1). AOIs previous research [40,41]. The four AOIs were defined according to the silhouette of the were defined considering bottle anatomy, and guidelines were suggested according to bottle: (i) top (i.e., the upper part of the bottle); (ii) shoulder; (iii) body (i.e., the central part previous research [40,41]. The four AOIs were defined according to the silhouette of the of the bottle); and (iv) heel (i.e., the lower part of the bottle—the bottom). bottle: (i) top (i.e., the upper part of the bottle); (ii) shoulder; (iii) body (i.e., the central For the first experiment, stylised images of each bottle were prepared in three orien- part of the bottle); and (iv) heel (i.e., the lower part of the bottle—the bottom). tations: vertical, horizontal left and horizontal right (Figure 2) to provide more reliable results, as well as presenting the bottle images in different orientations to avoid a bias For the first experiment, stylised images of each bottle were prepared in three ori- towards looking at the centre of the viewing area, as mentioned by Tatler [42]. entations: vertical, horizontal left and horizontal right (Figure 2) to provide more reliable For the second experiment, the European organic logo was placed on each bottle results, as well as presenting the bottle images in different orientations to avoid a bias in four different positions, considering the bottles’ body parts (Figure 3). The organic towards looking at the centre of the viewing area, as mentioned by Tatler [42]. logo was selected for two main reasons. On the one hand, the organic logo is a highly valued and trusted label across Europe [43,44], as well as a well-known label component in the wine market [45]. On the other hand, it is mainly composed of visual elements, which consumers tend to prefer over verbal descriptions [28,46,47]. The different bottles’ silhouettes, orientations and manipulations were designed using Adobe Photoshop. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, 36 4 of 17 Figure 2. Silhouettes of the two different bottles in three orientations. For the second experiment, the European organic logo was placed on each bottle in four different positions, considering the bottles’ body parts (Figure 3). The organic logo was selected for two main reasons. On the one hand, the organic logo is a highly valued and trusted label across Europe [43,44], as well as a well-known label component in the wine market [45]. On the other hand, it is mainly composed of visual elements, which consumers tend to prefer over verbal descriptions [28,46,47]. The different bottles’ sil- houettes, orientations and manipulations were designed using Adobe Photoshop. Figure 2. Silhouettes of the two different bottles in three orientations. Figure 2. Silhouettes of the two different bottles in three orientations. For the second experiment, the European organic logo was placed on each bottle in four different positions, considering the bottles’ body parts (Figure 3). The organic logo was selected for two main reasons. On the one hand, the organic logo is a highly valued and trusted label across Europe [43,44], as well as a well-known label component in the wine market [45]. On the other hand, it is mainly composed of visual elements, which consumers tend to prefer over verbal descriptions [28,46,47]. The different bottles’ sil- houettes, orientations and manipulations were designed using Adobe Photoshop. Figure 3. Locations of the organic logo on each bottle type. Figure 3. Locations of the organic logo on each bottle type. 2.3. Procedure The experiment took place in a quiet room under standard illumination conditions. 2.3. Procedure Each participant entered the laboratory individually, received the instructions and signed the informed consent form. Participants were seated in front of a monitor and asked to The experiment took place in a quiet room under standard illumination conditions. move as little as possible once they had found a comfortable position. The distance from the Each participant entered the laboratory individually, received the instructions and eye tracker and monitor was respected. In the instructions presented on screen, participants were informed that the survey aimed to identify the most suitable location of the organic signed the informed consent form. Participants were seated in front of a monitor and production logo for each wine bottle—independently of whether it was situated at the front asked to move as little as possible once they had found a comfortable position. The dis- or back—according to their preferences and the test was started on the screen. tance Each from step t ishillustrated e eye trac in Figur ker eand 4. Befor mo e data nito collec r was tion,respec each participant ted. In started the ins thetructions presented on Figure 3. Locations of the organic logo on each bottle type. experimental session with an eye-tracker calibration task; a nine-point calibration pattern screen, participants were informed that the survey aimed to identify the most suitable was shown on the screen to allow the eye-tracker to recognise where the person was looking. location of the organic production logo for each wine bottle—independently of whether 2.3. After Proce calibration, dure participants were shown a stylised tree image for five seconds. This step aimed to familiarise all participants with a stylised image while also distracting them before it was situated at the front or back—according to their preferences and the test was The experiment took place in a quiet room under standard illumination conditions. being shown the bottle silhouettes. Finally, data collection began, with the participants started on the screen. Each participant entered the laboratory individually, received the instructions and focusing first on one bottle design and then on the second. The viewing order of the two Each step is illustrated in Figure 4. Before data collection, each participant started bottle designs was randomised. signed the informed consent form. Participants were seated in front of a monitor and the experimental session with an eye-tracker calibration task; a nine-point calibration asked to move as little as possible once they had found a comfortable position. The dis- pattern tance from was th s ehow eye n trac on ker the and screen mont it o or allo was w respec the eye ted. -tra In cker the t ins o r truct ecog ions nise pres where ented th on e person screen, participants were informed that the survey aimed to identify the most suitable was looking. After calibration, participants were shown a stylised tree image for five location of the organic production logo for each wine bottle—independently of whether seconds. This step aimed to familiarise all participants with a stylised image while also it was situated at the front or back—according to their preferences and the test was distracting them before being shown the bottle silhouettes. Finally, data collection began, started on the screen. with the participants focusing first on one bottle design and then on the second. The Each step is illustrated in Figure 4. Before data collection, each participant started viewing order of the two bottle designs was randomised. the experimental session with an eye-tracker calibration task; a nine-point calibration pattern was shown on the screen to allow the eye-tracker to recognise where the person was looking. After calibration, participants were shown a stylised tree image for five seconds. This step aimed to familiarise all participants with a stylised image while also distracting them before being shown the bottle silhouettes. Finally, data collection began, with the participants focusing first on one bottle design and then on the second. The viewing order of the two bottle designs was randomised. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, 36 5 of 17 Figure 4. Sequence of the task followed by each participant. Figure 4. Sequence of the task followed by each participant. For each bottle design in the first experiment, the participants were presented with the silhouettes of the bottle in three different orientations (vertical, horizontal left and For each bottle design in the first experiment, the participants were presented with horizontal right). Each orientation was shown in a random order according to a Complete the silhouettes of the bottle in three different orientations (vertical, horizontal left and counterbalancing for three stimuli [40] to address the sequence effect issue, ensuring that horizontal right). Each orientation was shown in a random order according to a Complete every possible sequence appeared at least once [48]. An exposure time of seven seconds for each image was determined after a pilot test to avoid bias in the resulting time metrics. counterbalancing for three stimuli [40] to address the sequence effect issue, ensuring that Each participant observed the bottle in all orientations. The participants were asked to every possible sequence appeared at least once [48]. An exposure time of seven seconds carefully examine each silhouette while the eye-tracking device recorded their fixations. for each image was determined after a pilot test to avoid bias in the resulting time met- When moving from one silhouette to the next, a random grey inter-slide was presented for five seconds to allow the pupil size to adjust to the same starting value. rics. Each participant observed the bottle in all orientations. The participants were asked After having viewed the various images, each participant was presented with a slide to carefully examine each silhouette while the eye-tracking device recorded their fixa- that simultaneously presented four images of the same bottle with the organic logo in a tions. When moving from one silhouette to the next, a random grey inter-slide was pre- vertical orientation, randomly presented with a focus on different positions (neck, shoulder, body and heel). Participants were asked to select the location they perceived most suitable sented for five seconds to allow the pupil size to adjust to the same starting value. for the organic logo, according to their preference. Although the choice task provided After having viewed the various images, each participant was presented with a slide a consistent setting to study the relevance of the bottle parts in driving the participants’ that simultaneously presented four images of the same bottle with the organic logo in a attention, the chosen location was not relevant for this study since the aim was to study the consumer ’s visual attention when focusing on the individual bottles before performing the vertical orientation, randomly presented with a focus on different positions (neck, actual choice task. In other words, the relevant data collected for this second experiment shoulder, body and heel). Participants were asked to select the location they perceived consisted, once again, of eye-tracking data. most suitable for the organic logo, according to their preference. Although the choice task Then, participants repeated the two experimental steps with the second bottle type. provided a consistent setting to study the relevance of the bottle parts in driving the par- 2.4. Data Collection and Analysis ticipants’ attention, the chosen location was not relevant for this study since the aim was The experiment took place at the Food Consumer Research Laboratory of the Marche to study the consumer’s visual attention when focusing on the individual bottles before Polytechnic University (Italy). A convenient sample of students and workers from the Marche Polytechnic University were recruited. All participants were over 18 years of age. performing the actual choice task. In other words, the relevant data collected for this The laboratory was equipped with Tobii X2-60 eye tracker compact edition and an LCD second experiment consisted, once again, of eye-tracking data. monitor with a resolution of 1920 1080 (1080P). The eye-tracker was placed unobtrusively Then, participants repeated the two experimental steps with the second bottle type. 2.4. Data Collection and Analysis The experiment took place at the Food Consumer Research Laboratory of the Marche Polytechnic University (Italy). A convenient sample of students and workers from the Marche Polytechnic University were recruited. All participants were over 18 years of age. The laboratory was equipped with Tobii X2-60 eye tracker compact edition and an LCD monitor with a resolution of 1920 × 1080 (1080P). The eye-tracker was placed unobtrusively below the computer screen on which stimuli were displayed to the par- ticipants. The IMotions version 7.1 software was used for the design of the experiment, data collection and empirical analysis of eye tracking data. Beverages 2023, 9, 36 6 of 17 below the computer screen on which stimuli were displayed to the participants. The IMotions version 7.1 software was used for the design of the experiment, data collection and empirical analysis of eye tracking data. 2.4.1. Saliency Controls As a control analysis, the selected bottles’ salient parts were determined by creating their individual saliency maps. Saliency maps compute visually observable locations of a stimulus based on normal visual features that include brightness, colour, and motion. Matlab’s graph-based visual saliency model (GBVS) was used to create saliency maps of each bottle. The GBVS is a bottom-up saliency model; according to the literature, it is more accurate in predicting saliency maps than other models [49]. 2.4.2. Eye Tracking Measures Mueller and Lockshin [50] concluded that the importance of visual packaging could not be reliably measured using verbal methods. In this respect, eye-tracking technology has gained importance in exploring consumer choices by investigating which elements capture their visual attention. Consumers’ visual attention is distributed unconsciously, within seconds [51], tending to favour stimuli unconsciously perceived as being more attractive. The visual properties of stimuli (e.g., colour, darkness, brightness of food packaging) can impact consumers’ visual attention [52]. The effect of visual saliency as a precursor of attention in choice situations is well-established in literature: visually salient objects (e.g., labels) capture attention first, and are fixated on first and for a longer time [52–55]. However, greater attention does not automatically translate into choice [52,56,57]. Nevertheless, a visually salient spot is worth further exploitation from marketers by employing cognitively relevant or emotionally arousing stimuli [58]. The data collected with the eye-tracker were first mapped onto each stimulus of bottle silhouettes using heat maps. Heat maps are a colourful representation of how the partici- pants look at the different parts of the stimulus. In the heat maps, the areas that attracted the highest attention are indicated in “red”, while those that attracted medium levels of attention are in “yellow”. “Green” indicates the areas that attracted the lowest attention. Visual attention is associated with eye fixation and eye movements, and their combination is specific to each individual, indicating the individual’s visual attention level [59]. Visual fixation is the most commonly used parameter to determine where consumer attention might be focused [60]. Eye-tracking devices capture eye movements with a frequency of 60 Hz and 0.4 accuracy. Several different measures of eye movements can be obtained with eye tracking, such as the number and duration of fixations, the time spent on a fixation area, and the number of times the gaze returns to this area [61]. The present study focuses on two critical eye-tracking metrics: time to first fixation (TTFF) and time spent (TS). Both measures have been previously used in literature to measure consumers’ attention and interest [31,51]. The TTFF measures attention and noticeability [41]. It measures which AOI first attracted the participant’s attention. More precisely, it corresponds to the time a participant takes to fixate on a bottle or a bottle part for the first time. Therefore, a shorter TTFF time indicates that the participant fixation started sooner after the image appeared on the screen. A longer TTFF time indicates that the fixation occurred later or did not occur. In the latter case, the TTFF was equal to the maximum time spent on the screen. On the other hand, TS quantifies the time participants have spent looking at a specific AOI. It represents the participant’s interest in the fixated object [40,51]. Higher TS indicates a higher interest from the participant in the fixated object. Factorial repeated-measures ANOVA procedures were run to determine whether the bottle type (Bottle A vs. Bottle B), bottle parts (top vs. shoulder vs. centre vs. bottom), orientation (vertical vs. horizontal left vs. horizontal right), and interactions affected TTFF or TS. The Greenhouse–Geisser correction was implemented in cases where the sphericity criterion was not met [62–64]. Moreover, a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA procedure Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 STATA MP version 17 and R Version 4.2.2 [65,66] were used for the statistical analysis. Contrasts and margin estimations were also implemented for a more detailed analysis. 3. Results Beverages 2023, 9, 36 7 of 17 Twenty-four participants were recruited for the study among university students and non-research staff, with an equal gender distribution. All participants were adults was also estimated to identify the effect of the bottle type and position of the logo within aged between 20 and 59 (the mean age was 30.25 years). The sample size was sufficient to the bottle on consumers’ attention (TTFF) and interest (TS). STATA MP version 17 and R detect at least a 20% difference between the different bottles and AOI within subjects [40]. Version 4.2.2 [65,66] were used for the statistical analysis. Contrasts and margin estimations were also implemented for a more detailed analysis. The results from the study are presented in three sections. First, the saliency maps of the bottle stimuli obtained from the GBVS modelling are introduced. Then, heat maps ob- 3. Results Twenty-four participants were recruited for the study among university students and tained from eye tracking present a descriptive analysis of the participants’ preferences. non-research staff, with an equal gender distribution. All participants were adults aged Finally, the analysis of the AOI metrics obtained from eye-tracking measures is present- between 20 and 59 (the mean age was 30.25 years). The sample size was sufficient to detect ed. at least a 20% difference between the different bottles and AOI within subjects [40]. The results from the study are presented in three sections. First, the saliency maps of the bottle stimuli obtained from the GBVS modelling are introduced. Then, heat maps obtained from 3.1. Saliency Maps Controls eye tracking present a descriptive analysis of the participants’ preferences. Finally, the analysis of the AOI metrics obtained from eye-tracking measures is presented. The (predicted) GBVS saliency maps of each stimulus are presented in Figure 5. The maps show how the most salient area for Bottle A refers to the shoulder, where the centre 3.1. Saliency Maps Controls of the Theshou (predicted) lder GBVS curve saliency is shown maps of in each red. stimulus In the ar eca prse esented of Bottle in Figur B, e 5 .tThe he saliency maps demon- maps show how the most salient area for Bottle A refers to the shoulder, where the centre of strated that the most salient parts were mainly the top and the heel. However, in the the shoulder curve is shown in red. In the case of Bottle B, the saliency maps demonstrated vertical orientation, the neck and the shoulder curve also represented additional slightly that the most salient parts were mainly the top and the heel. However, in the vertical orientation, the neck and the shoulder curve also represented additional slightly salient salient parts in yellow. parts in yellow. Figure 5. Saliency maps of each of the bottles in three orientations. Figure 5. Saliency maps of each of the bottles in three orientations. 3.2. Heat Maps The heat maps show that the shoulders of the bottles were the most fixated upon areas 3.2. Heat Maps regardless of the bottles’ orientation and type (Figure 6). However, Bottle A’s most fixated areas (red patches) are larger than Bottle B’s. Moreover, the second most fixated upon area The heat maps show that the shoulders of the bottles were the most fixated upon in Bottle B was the top, regardless of the orientation. These results are consistent with the areas regardless of the bottles’ orientation and type (Figure 6). However, Bottle A’s most GBVS saliency maps. fixated areas (red patches) are larger than Bottle B’s. Moreover, the second most fixated upon area in Bottle B was the top, regardless of the orientation. These results are con- sistent with the GBVS saliency maps. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, 36 8 of 17 Figure 6. Heat maps of each of the bottles in three orientations showing the areas of fixation combined Figure 6. Heat maps of each of the bottles in three orientations showing the areas of fixation com- for all of the participants (red: high; yellow: medium; green: low). bined for all of the participants (red: high; yellow: medium; green: low). When the silhouettes were presented in a horizontal orientation (both left and right), When the silhouettes were presented in a horizontal orientation (both left and right), the heat maps showed that the top was also the second most fixated upon area for Bottle A. the heat maps showed that the top was also the second most fixated upon area for Bottle Moreover, the bottom of the bottles in a horizontal orientation also obtained the participants’ A. Moreover, the bottom of the bottles in a horizontal orientation also obtained the par- attention. The area that received the least attention in all orientations was the centre of ticipants’ attention. The area that received the least attention in all orientations was the the bottle. centre of the bottle. 3.3. The Role of Bottle Type, Orientation and Bottle Parts 3.3. The Role of Bottle Type, Orientation and Bottle Parts In terms of TTFF, in Bottle A, the shoulder area was the first point towards which respondents directed their attention, followed by the top. This was regardless of the In terms of TTFF, in Bottle A, the shoulder area was the first point towards which orientation of the bottle. Participants also showed a higher interest (TS) in the same areas respondents directed their attention, followed by the top. This was regardless of the (shoulder and top). In the case of bottle B, only the bottles in vertical and horizontal left orientation of the bottle. Participants also showed a higher interest (TS) in the same areas orientations generated the same visual attention in participants as bottle A (shoulders (shoulder and top). In the case of bottle B, only the bottles in vertical and horizontal left first, followed by top). However, the participants’ interest (TS) differed between the two orientations generated the same visual attention in participants as bottle A (shoulders orientations. Bottle B in the vertical orientation obtained the most interest in the shoulder first, followed by top). However, the participants’ interest (TS) differed between the two area with longer TS, while the horizontal left orientation registered it on the top area. orientations. Bottle B in the vertical orientation obtained the most interest in the shoulder On average, Bottle B in the horizontal right orientation obtained consumers’ visual area with longer TS, while the horizontal left orientation registered it on the top area. attention in the top and the central areas. The time spent on each part was also among the On average, Bottle B in the horizontal right orientation obtained consumers’ visual highest, on average, compared to other bottle parts. Participants looked at the bottom area attention in the top and the central areas. The time spent on each part was also among the last. On average, more time was spent fixating on the shoulder area of the bottles than their highest, on average, compared to other bottle parts. Participants looked at the bottom top, centre and bottom. Detailed results are presented in Table 1. area last. On average, more time was spent fixating on the shoulder area of the bottles The factorial repeated-measures ANOVA results showed no significant three-way than their top, centre and bottom. Detailed results are presented in Table 1. interaction for TTFF [F(6, 529) = 1.24, p = 0.285]. However, the bottle type and bottle part interaction had a significant effect on TTFF [F(2.25, 0.75) = 5.06, p = 0.005 (with Greenhouse– Geisser adjustment)]. In specific, the centre area of the bottles presented a significantly different TTFF [F(1, 568) = 12.01, p = 0.001] between the bottle types. Although, on average, the participants followed the same fixation pattern for both bottles (first fixated on the shoulder area, followed by top, centre and bottom), the respondents turned their attention to the central area of the bottle faster for Bottle B than for Bottle A. Details can be observed in Figure 7. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17 Table 1. Average means and standard deviations (in parenthesis) of AOIs of each bottle in three positions. AOI Metrics AOI Bottle A Bottle B (ms) * 2167.46 1992.88 1913.71 1548.08 1837.67 1582.38 TTFF ** (2162.33) (2262.38) (2188.9) (1812.17) (2003.72) (1662.73) Top 1228.42 1093.46 1001.17 1463.04 1194.88 1208.92 TS *** (1132.89) (905.46) (834.91) (1072.06) (645.78) (1029.76) 548 1517.12 978.79 745.17 1445.79 2036.08 TTFF (1154.67) (2239.12) (2188.9) (1472.22) (1722.23) (2542.84) Shoulder 2433.21 1655.08 1242.42 1861.21 1035.42 815.38 TS (1371.54) (1194.08) (781.51) (1301.35) (715.84) (716.12) Beverages 2023, 9, 36 9 of 17 4085.62 3719.46 3189.17 3922.58 1462.62 1649.04 Bev Bev Bev Bev er er er ag Bev Bev ag ag er es ag es es er er 2 es 0 2 2 ag ag 2 0 0 2 es 3 2 2 es 0 ,3 3 2 9 ,2 ,2 3 , 9 9 0 0 ,x FO , , 2 2 9 x FO x FO 3 3 , ,, x FO 9 9, R P , x FO R P R P x FO R P EE EE EE R P R R P EE R R RE RE RE EE R EE RE VIEW R VIEW VIEW R RE RE VIEW VIEW VIEW 9 9 9of 9 of of of 17 9 9 17 17 of 17 of 17 17 TTFF (2953.34) (2858.58) (3009.04) (2524.03) (1556.62) (2165.52) Centre Table 1. Average means and standard deviations (in parenthesis) of AOIs of each bottle in 434 349.42 798.79 616.88 869.71 1326.38 Table Table Table Table Table Table 11 1 . ..Av 1 Av Av . 1 Av era 1.era era . Av Av era ge ge ge era era ge m m m ge eans ge m eans eans eans m means and eans and and and st and and st st andard st andard andard andard st standard andard de de de v de v v ia ia ia de v ti de ia ti ti ons v ons ons v ti ia ia ons ti ti (in ons ( (ons in in (in paren paren paren ((in paren in paren paren thesi thesi thesi thesi s) thesi thesi s) s) of s) of of s) of AO s) AO AO of AO of Is Is Is AO AO of Is of of Is of eac Is eac eac of eac of hh h eac bottl eac h bottl bottl bottl h h e bottl bottl e e in e in in in thr e e thr thr in thr in ee ee ee thr thr ee ee ee TS three positions. posi posi posi posi tiposi ti ti posi ons ons ons tions .ti ti ..ons ons . .. (532.8) (470.77) (930.83) (758.28) (510.77) (1110.62) 4166.71 3553.79 3769.701 4671.21 3757.96 3690.12 TTFF (2566.34) (2306.3) (2498.87) (2695.6) (2126.59) (2697.74) Bottom 288.42 569.5 457.08 223.67 608.67 524.46 TS AOI M AOI M AOI M AOI M AOI M AOI M etrics etrics etrics etrics etrics etrics (336.2) (577.38) (497.53) (381.9) (755) (537.77) AOI AOI AOI AOI AOI AOI AOI Metrics Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle A A A A A A Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle Bottle B B B B B B AOI Bottle A Bottle B (m (m (m (m ss s ) (m ) ) (m * s* * ) s * s) ) * * (ms) * Note: Values in parentheses correspond to the standard deviations. * (ms), millisecond; ** TTFF: 2167. 2167. 2167. 2167. 2167. 2167. 46 46 46 46 46 46 1992. 1992. 1992. 1992. 1992. 1992. 88 88 88 88 88 88 1913. 1913. 1913. 1913. 1913. 1913. 71 71 71 71 71 71 1548. 1548. 1548. 1548. 1548. 1548. 08 08 08 08 08 08 1837. 1837. 1837. 1837. 1837. 1837. 67 67 67 67 67 67 1582. 1582. 1582. 1582. 1582. 1582. 38 38 38 38 38 38 TT TT TT TT FF FF FF TT TT FF ** ** ** FF FF ** ** ** 2167.46 1992.88 1913.71 1548.08 1837.67 1582.38 (21 (21 (21 (21 62.33) 62.33) 62.33) (21 (21 62.33) 62.33) 62.33) (22 (22 (22 (22 62.38) 62.38) 62.38) (22 (22 62.38) 62.38) 62.38) (21 (21 (21 (21 88.9) 88.9) 88.9) (21 (21 88.9) 88.9) 88.9) (18 (18 (18 (18 12.17) 12.17) 12.17) (18 (18 12.17) 12.17) 12.17) (20 (20 (20 (20 03.72) 03.72) 03.72) (20 (20 03.72) 03.72) 03.72) (16 (16 (16 (16 62.73) 62.73) 62.73) (16 (16 62.73) 62.73) 62.73) TTFF ** time to first fixation; *** TS: time spent. Top To To To To pp p To To p p p (2162.33) (2262.38) (2188.9) (1812.17) (2003.72) (1662.73) 1228. 1228. 1228. 1228. 1228. 1228. 42 42 42 42 42 42 1093. 1093. 1093. 1093. 1093. 1093. 46 46 46 46 46 46 1001. 1001. 1001. 1001. 1001. 1001. 17 17 17 17 17 17 1463. 1463. 1463. 1463. 1463. 1463. 04 04 04 04 04 04 1194. 1194. 1194. 1194. 1194. 1194. 88 88 88 88 88 88 1208. 1208. 1208. 1208. 1208. 1208. 92 92 92 92 92 92 TS TS TS TS *** *** *** TS TS *** *** *** 1228.42 1093.46 1001.17 1463.04 1194.88 1208.92 TS *** (11 (11 (11 (11 32.89) 32.89) 32.89) (11 (11 32.89) 32.89) 32.89) (90 (90 (90 (90 5.46) 5.46) 5.46) (90 (90 5.46) 5.46) 5.46) (83 (83 (83 (83 4.91) 4.91) 4.91) (83 (83 4.91) 4.91) 4.91) (10 (10 (10 (10 72.06) 72.06) 72.06) (10 (10 72.06) 72.06) 72.06) (64 (64 (64 (64 5.78) 5.78) 5.78) (64 (64 5.78) 5.78) 5.78) (10 (10 (10 (10 29.76) 29.76) 29.76) (10 (10 29.76) 29.76) 29.76) (1132.89) (905.46) (834.91) (1072.06) (645.78) (1029.76) The factorial repeated-measures ANOVA results showed no significant three-way 548 548 548 548 548 1517. 1517. 1517. 1517. 1517. 12 12 12 12 12 978.7 978.7 978.7 978.7 978.7 9 9 9 9 9 745.1 745.1 745.1 745.1 745.1 7 7 7 7 7 1445. 1445. 1445. 1445. 1445. 79 79 79 79 79 2036. 2036. 2036. 2036. 2036. 08 08 08 08 08 548 1517.12 978.79 745.17 1445.79 2036.08 548 1517.12 978.79 745.17 1445.79 2036.08 TT TT TT FF FF TT FF FF TTFFTT FF TTFF (11 (11 54.67) (11 54.67) 54.67) (22 (22 39.12) (22 39.12) 39.12) (21 (21 88.9) (21 88.9) 88.9) (14 (14 72.22) (14 72.22) 72.22) (17 (17 22.23) (17 22.23) 22.23) (25 (25 42.84) (25 42.84) 42.84) (11 (11 54.67) 54.67) (1154.67) (22 (22 39.12) 39.12) (2239.12) (21 (21 88.9) 88.9) (21 88.9) (14 (14 72.22) 72.22) (1472.22) (17 (17 22.23) 22.23) (1722.23) (25 (25 42.84) 42.84) (2542.84) (1154.67) (2239.12) (2188.9) (1472.22) (1722.23) (2542.84) Shoulder interaction for TTFF [F(6, 529) = 1.24, p = 0.285]. However, the bottle type and bottle part Shou Shou lderlder Shou Shou Shou Shou lder lder lder lder 2433. 2433.21 2433. 2433. 2433. 2433. 2433. 21 21 21 21 21 21 1655. 1655.08 1655. 1655. 1655. 1655. 1655. 08 08 08 08 08 08 1242. 1242.42 1242. 1242. 1242. 1242. 1242. 42 42 42 42 42 42 1861. 1861. 1861. 1861. 1861.21 1861. 1861. 21 21 21 21 21 21 1035. 1035. 1035. 1035. 1035.42 1035. 1035. 42 42 42 42 42 42 815.3 815.3 815.3 815.3 815.3 815.3 815.38 88 8 8 8 8 TS TS TS TS TS TS TS interaction had a significant effect on TTFF [F(2.25, 0.75) = 5.06, p = 0.005 (with Green- (1371.54) (1194.08) (781.51) (1301.35) (715.84) (716.12) (13 (13 (13 (13 71.54) 71.54) 71.54) (13 (13 71.54) 71.54) 71.54) (11 (11 (11 (11 94.08) 94.08) 94.08) (11 (11 94.08) 94.08) 94.08) (78 (78 (78 (78 1.51) 1.51) 1.51) (78 (78 1.51) 1.51) 1.51) (13 (13 (13 (13 01.35) 01.35) 01.35) (13 (13 01.35) 01.35) 01.35) (71 (71 (71 (71 5.84) 5.84) 5.84) (71 (71 5.84) 5.84) 5.84) (71 (71 (71 (71 6.12) 6.12) 6.12) (71 (71 6.12) 6.12) 6.12) 4085.62 3719.46 3189.17 3922.58 1462.62 1649.04 4085. 4085. 4085. 4085. 4085. 4085. 62 62 62 62 62 62 3719. 3719. 3719. 3719. 3719. 3719. 46 46 46 46 46 46 3189. 3189. 3189. 3189. 3189. 3189. 17 17 17 17 17 17 3922. 3922. 3922. 3922. 3922. 3922. 58 58 58 58 58 58 1462. 1462. 1462. 1462. 1462. 1462. 62 62 62 62 62 62 1649. 1649. 1649. 1649. 1649. 1649. 04 04 04 04 04 04 TTFF house–Geisser adjustment)]. In specific, the centre area of the bottles presented a signif- TT TT TT TT FF FF FF TT TT FF FF FF (2953.34) (2858.58) (3009.04) (2524.03) (1556.62) (2165.52) Centre (29 (29 (29 (29 53.34) 53.34) 53.34) (29 (29 53.34) 53.34) 53.34) (28 (28 (28 (28 58.58) 58.58) 58.58) (28 (28 58.58) 58.58) 58.58) (30 (30 (30 (30 09.04) 09.04) 09.04) (30 (30 09.04) 09.04) 09.04) (25 (25 (25 (25 24.03) 24.03) 24.03) (25 (25 24.03) 24.03) 24.03) (15 (15 (15 (15 56.62) 56.62) 56.62) (15 (15 56.62) 56.62) 56.62) (21 (21 (21 (21 65.52) 65.52) 65.52) (21 (21 65.52) 65.52) 65.52) Cen Cen Cen Cen tCen re t t Cen re re t re tt re re 434 349.42 798.79 616.88 869.71 1326.38 icantly different TTFF [F(1, 568) = 12.01, p = 0.001] between the bottle types. Although, on 434 434 434 434 434 434 349.4 349.4 349.4 349.4 349.4 349.4 22 2 2 2 2 798.7 798.7 798.7 798.7 798.7 798.7 99 9 9 9 9 616.8 616.8 616.8 616.8 616.8 616.8 88 8 8 8 8 869.7 869.7 869.7 869.7 869.7 869.7 11 1 1 1 1 1326. 1326. 1326. 1326. 1326. 1326. 38 38 38 38 38 38 TS TS TS TS TS TS TS (532.8) (470.77) (930.83) (758.28) (510.77) (1110.62) (53 (53 (53 (53 2.8) 2.8) 2.8) (53 (53 2.8) 2.8) 2.8) (47 (47 (47 (47 0.77) 0.77) 0.77) (47 (47 0.77) 0.77) 0.77) (93 (93 (93 (93 0.83) 0.83) 0.83) (93 (93 0.83) 0.83) 0.83) (75 (75 (75 (75 8.28) 8.28) 8.28) (75 (75 8.28) 8.28) 8.28) (51 (51 (51 (51 0.77) 0.77) 0.77) (51 (51 0.77) 0.77) 0.77) (11 (11 (11 (11 10.62) 10.62) 10.62) (11 (11 10.62) 10.62) 10.62) average, the participants followed the same fixation pattern for both bottles (first fixated 4166.71 3553.79 3769.701 4671.21 3757.96 3690.12 TTFF 4166. 4166. 4166. 71 71 71 3553. 3553. 3553. 79 79 79 3769. 3769. 3769. 701 701 701 4671. 4671. 4671. 21 21 21 3757. 3757. 3757. 96 96 96 3690. 3690. 3690. 12 12 12 4166. 4166. 4166. 71 71 71 3553. 3553. 3553. 79 79 79 3769. 3769. 3769. 701 701 701 4671. 4671. 4671. 21 21 21 3757. 3757. 3757. 96 96 96 3690. 3690. 3690. 12 12 12 (2566.34) (2306.3) (2498.87) (2695.6) (2126.59) (2697.74) Bottom TTFF TT FF TT TT TT FF FF TT FF FF on the shoulder area, followed by top, centre and bottom), the respondents turned their (25 (25 (25 (25 66.34) 66.34) 66.34) (25 (25 66.34) 66.34) 66.34) (23 (23 (23 (23 06.3) 06.3) 06.3) (23 (23 06.3) 06.3) 06.3) (24 (24 (24 (24 98.87) 98.87) 98.87) (24 (24 98.87) 98.87) 98.87) (26 (26 (26 (26 95.6) 95.6) 95.6) (26 (26 95.6) 95.6) 95.6) (21 (21 (21 (21 26.59) 26.59) 26.59) (21 (21 26.59) 26.59) 26.59) (26 (26 (26 (26 97.74) 97.74) 97.74) (26 (26 97.74) 97.74) 97.74) 288.42 569.5 457.08 223.67 608.67 524.46 Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom TS 288.4 288.4 288.4 288.4 288.4 288.4 22 2 2 2 2 569.5 569.5 569.5 569.5 569.5 569.5 457.0 457.0 457.0 457.0 457.0 457.0 88 8 8 8 8 223.6 223.6 223.6 223.6 223.6 223.6 77 7 7 7 7 608.6 608.6 608.6 608.6 608.6 608.6 77 7 7 7 7 524.4 524.4 524.4 524.4 524.4 524.4 66 6 6 6 6 (336.2) (577.38) (497.53) (381.9) (755) (537.77) attention to the central area of the bottle faster for Bottle B than for Bottle A. Details can TS TS TS TS TS TS (33 (33 (33 (33 6.2) 6.2) 6.2) (33 (33 6.2) 6.2) 6.2) (57 (57 (57 (57 7.38) 7.38) 7.38) (57 (57 7.38) 7.38) 7.38) (49 (49 (49 (49 7.53) 7.53) 7.53) (49 (49 7.53) 7.53) 7.53) (38 (38 (38 (38 1.9) 1.9) 1.9) (38 (38 1.9) 1.9) 1.9) (75 (75 (75 (75 5) 5) 5) (75 (75 5) 5) 5) (53 (53 (53 (53 7.77) 7.77) 7.77) (53 (53 7.77) 7.77) 7.77) Note: Values in parentheses correspond to the standard deviations. * (ms), millisecond; ** TTFF: time to first be observed in Figure 7. Note: No Values te: Values in paren in paren these these s corr s co espond rrespond to the to st the andar standar d devi d d ati evi ons ati.ons * (m . *s) (m , m s) il , lis me il co lis nd eco ; nd ** TTFF ; ** TTFF : : No No No te: te: No te: Values Values te: Values Values i n in iparen n paren paren in paren these these these s these sco s co rr co rr s es rr es co pond es pond rr pond es pond to to to the the the to st st the andar st andar andar standar d d d d d evi evi d d evi ati ati devi ons ati ons ons ati . .* ons * .(m * (m .(m s) s) *, s) ,(m m m , il s) m il lis ,lil is m e le is co il co el nd co is nd e nd ; co ; ** * ; nd *TTFF * * TTFF ; TTFF ** :TTFF : : : fixation; *** TS: time spent. titi ti m m m ti e m e e to ti ti to e to m m f to irs e f fe irs irs to fto t irs t tfix ff fix fix irs tirs ati fix ati ati tt fix on ati fix on on ati ; on ati ; ; ** ** ** on ; * TS on ** * TS * TS ; ; * TS ** ** : :* TS :ti * TS ti ti m : m m ti e :m :e e spent ti ti spent e spent m m spent e e spent .spent .. . .. Th Th Th Th e e e Th fa Th e fa fa cfa e c c te or t tc or fa or fa tial or c ial ial cttial or or repea repea repea ial ial repea repea repea ted t ted ed ted -mea - -tmea mea ted - ed mea -sur -mea mea sur sur sur ee e s sur sur s s e ANO s ANO ANO e e ANO s s ANO ANO V V V A V A A A res V V res res A A res ults ults ults res res ults ults sho ults sho sho sho wed wed wed sho sho wed wed wed no no no no si si si no no gn si gn gn gn isi fi si i ifi fi gn c gn ic c fi ant ant ant c iifi ant fi c c t ant hree t t ant hree hree three tt- hree hree way - -way way -way --way way inter int acer tion act ion for TT for FF TT[FF F(6, [F(6, 529) 529) = 1.24, = 1.24, p = 0.2 p =85]. 0.2 85]. Howe Howe ver, ver, the t bo he ttle bottle type type and and bot tle botp tle artp art int int int er er ac int er ac tac ion er tion tac ion fo tfo ion r fo r TT r TT fo TT FF r FF TT FF [F(6, [F(6, FF [F(6, [ 529) F(6, 529) 529) = 529) = 1.24, = 1.24, 1.24, = 1.24, pp = p = 0.2 = 0.2 p 0.2 85]. = 85]. 0.2 85]. Howe 85]. Howe Howe Howe ver, ver, ver, tver, h th e te h bo e bo th bo ttle e ttle ttle bo type tttle ype type t and ype and and bo and bo bo ttle ttle t bo tle pp tar tle ar ptar tp tar t int int int int er er er int ac int er ac ac tac er ion er t tion ion t ac ac ion th tion h h ion ad ad ad had h a h a a ad ad signi a signi signi signi a a signi fi signi fi fi cc c fi an an an cfi an t fi t tc c ef an t ef ef an fec ef fec fec tt fec ef tef t ton fec fec t on on on tTT t TT TT on on TT FF FF FF TT TT FF [F(2 [F(2 [F(2 FF FF [F(2 .25, [F(2 .25, .25, [F(2 .25, 0.75) .25, .25, 0.75) 0.75) 0.75) 0.75) 0.75) = = = 5.0 = 5.0 5.0 5.0 = 6, = 6, 6, 5.0 5.0 6, p p p = 6, p 6, = = 0.0 = p 0.0 0.0 p 0.0 = 05 =05 05 0.0 0.0 05 (wit (wit (wit 05 05 (wit h (wit h h (wit Green h Green Green Green h h Green Green - - - - -- house house house house house house –– – Gei Gei Gei –Gei – sse – sse sse Gei Gei sse r r r sse adjustm sse r adjustm adjustm adjustm r r adjustm adjustm ent ent ent ent )]. ) )ent ]. ]. ent )In ]. In In ))In ]. speci ]. speci speci In In speci speci speci fifi fi cc c fi , , , t che fi t t, fi he he c tc he , , cen tcen cen the he cen tre t tcen cen re re tre are are are ttre re are a a a are of are a of of of t a a he t the he of of the bo tbo bo the he bo ttles ttles ttles bo ttles bottles presen ttles presen presen presen presen presen ted t ted ed ted a ta a ted ed signi a signi signi signi a a signi f- signi f- f-f- f- f- ica ica ica ica nn n tica lica t t n y l ly y tl d n n y d d t iffer tliffer iffer d ly y iffer d d ent iffer iffer ent ent ent TT ent TT TT ent TT FF F F [ TT F [ F [ TT FF [ F(1 F F(1 F(1 FF [ F [ F(1 , 5 , 5 , 5 F(1 F(1 68) , 5 68) 68) , 5 68) , 5 = = = 68) 1 68) = 1 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 = = 2.0 1, 1 1 1, 1, 2.0 2.0 p 1, p p = 1, p = = 1, 0. = 0. 0. p p 001] 0. 001] 001] = = 001] 0. 0.001] be 001] be be tw be tw tw be tw een be een een tw tw een teen h een t th h e te e h bo e t bo bo th h bo te tle t e t ttle t tle t bo t bo tle t ypes tttle t ypes ypes tle t ypes ypes . A ypes . A . A . A ltl lh t t . A . A h h lough, tough, ough, hllough, tth hough, ough, on on on on on on aver aver aver aver ag aver aver ag ag e, ag e, e, ag t e, ag he t the he e, te, he particip t particip particip the he particip particip particip ants ants ants ants ants fants oll f foll oll foll owed owed owed ffoll owed ollowed owed the t the he the st s s ame the ame ame he same ssame f ame ixati f fixati ixati fixati ff on ixati ixati on on on pattern pattern pattern on on pattern pattern pattern for for for for bo bo bo for for bo th t th h bo t bo bo h bo bo tt bo ttl h h ttl ttl bo e ttl bo e e s s s e ttl ( ttl fi s ( (fi fi e r e (s st r r fi s st st ( r (fi f st fi ix f fr ix ix r st f at st ix at at e fat fix e e d ix d d e at at d e ed d on on on on the t ton he he on the sho tsho sho the he sho ulder ulder ulder sho sho ulder ulder ulder area area area area , area area , , fo fo fo , llow fo llow llow , , llow fo foed llow llow ed ed ed by by by ed ed by top t tby op op by top , ,,t centre top centre centre op , centre ,, centre centre and and and and b and and b b ott ott ott bott om b om om bott ott om ),), ), om om t ), he t the he t ), ), he re tre re the he spon re spon spon spon re respon dent spon dent dent dent s dent dent s s tu s tu tu rned tu s rned rned s rned tu turned rned the t the he tir he ir ir t the ir he ir ir att att att att en en en att att t en ion t tion ion en ten ion t ttion o t t ion o o tth o th th t e t th o e e o centr e th centr centr th centr e e centr centr al al al al ar ar ar e al ar al e e a a a e ar of ar a of of e e of t a a he t the he of of the bo t bo bo the he bo ttl t ttl tl bo e t bo e e tl faster e tfaster faster ttl tl faster e e faster faster fo fo fo r fo r r Br B B fo ottle fo ottle ottle B r r ottle B Bottle ottle B B B tB h t th h an t B B an an han ttf h h or f fan or or an f or Bot Bot Bot ff or or Bot t le t t Bot Bot le le tA. le A. A. ttle A. le Details Details Details A. A. Details Details Details cc c an an an can c can an be ob be ob be ob be ob be ob served served served served served i in ni n Fi Fi iFi in g g n ure ure g Fi Fi ure g g 7 7 ure ure 7 .. . 7 7.. be observed in Figure 7. Figure 7. Predictive margins for TTFF according to type of bottle and bottle part, with a 95% confidence interval. The interaction of bottle parts and bottle orientation also significantly affected TTFF [F(6, 529) = 3.83, p = 0.001]. Although, on average, participants followed the same fixation pattern in all three orientations, significant differences were found for the shoulders and Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17 Figure 7. Predictive margins for TTFF according to type of bottle and bottle part, with a 95% con- fidence interval. The interaction of bottle parts and bottle orientation also significantly affected TTFF [F(6, 529) = 3.83, p = 0.001]. Although, on average, participants followed the same fixation pattern in all three orientations, significant differences were found for the shoulders and central areas between the different orientations. Specifically, the TTFF for the bottles’ shoulder area in the vertical orientation is about 834.88 ms lower than that in the hori- Beverages 2023, 9, 36 10 of 17 zontal left orientation (p = 0.047) and 860.85 ms lower than that in the horizontal right orientation (p = 0.041). This means that participants, on average, fixated sooner on the central areas between the different orientations. Specifically, the TTFF for the bottles’ shoulder area when the bottle was placed in a vertical rather than a horizontal orienta- shoulder area in the vertical orientation is about 834.88 ms lower than that in the horizontal tion. left orientation (p = 0.047) and 860.85 ms lower than that in the horizontal right orientation (p = 0.041). This means that participants, on average, fixated sooner on the shoulder area Moreover, the TTFF for the bottles’ central area in the vertical orientation is ap- when the bottle was placed in a vertical rather than a horizontal orientation. proximately 1413.06 ms higher than for the horizontal left orientation (p = 0.001) and 1585 Moreover, the TTFF for the bottles’ central area in the vertical orientation is approxi- ms higher than for the horizontal right orientation (p < 0.000). In this case, participants mately 1413.06 ms higher than for the horizontal left orientation (p = 0.001) and 1585 ms higher than for the horizontal right orientation (p < 0.000). In this case, participants fixated fixated on the central part of the bottles oriented horizontally sooner than on the centre of on the central part of the bottles oriented horizontally sooner than on the centre of the the bottles oriented vertically. Graphical details are presented in Figure 8. bottles oriented vertically. Graphical details are presented in Figure 8. Figure 8. Predictive margins for TTFF according to bottle orientation and part, with a 95% confidence Figure 8. Predictive margins for TTFF according to bottle orientation and part, with a 95% confi- interval. dence interval. The bottle parts also had a significant main effect on TTFF [F(2.15, 0.7174) = 49.99, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. Significant effects on the TTFF were The bottle parts also had a significant main effect on TTFF [F(2.15, 0.7174) = 49.99, p < found between the different bottle parts [F(3, 572) = 39.80, p < 0.0001]. On average, partici- 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. Significant effects on the TTFF were pants fixated on the shoulder of the bottle 628.5 ms before fixating on the top (p = 0.021). fou Mornd eover be , participants tween the fixated differ their ent gaze bottle on the pa centr rts e[F( of the 3, 572) bottle= 1164.39 39.80, msp later < 0. than 0001]. On average, par- on the top (p < 0.0001) and 2094.56 ms later than on the bottom (p < 0.0001). ticipants fixated on the shoulder of the bottle 628.5 ms before fixating on the top (p = In the case of time spent, there was no three-way interaction [F(2.60, 0.4334) = 0.24, 0.021). Moreover, participants fixated their gaze on the centre of the bottle 1164.39 ms p = 0.8393 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. However, the interaction between bottle type and bottle part had a significant effect on the time participants spent fixating on the later than on the top (p < 0.0001) and 2094.56 ms later than on the bottom (p < 0.0001). selected area [F(2.04, 0.6785) = 9.83, p = 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. In the case of time spent, there was no three-way interaction [F(2.60, 0.4334) = 0.24, p Specifically, there were significant differences between the time spent on the shoulder = 0.8393 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. However, the interaction between bot- [F(1, 529) = 17.47, p < 0.0001] and central [F(1, 529) = 10.10, p = 0.002] areas. On average, t participants le type and spent bo 539.57 ttle p ms art longer hadfixating a sign their ifica gaze nt e on ffec thet shoulder on the of time Bottle pA arthan ticip on ants spent fixating on that of Bottle B. Moreover, participants spent 410.25 ms less fixating on the centre of Bottle the selected area [F(2.04, 0.6785) = 9.83, p = 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjust- A than on the centre of Bottle B. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 9. ment)]. Specifically, there were significant differences between the time spent on the shoulder [F(1, 529) = 17.47, p < 0.0001] and central [F(1, 529) = 10.10, p = 0.002] areas. On average, participants spent 539.57 ms longer fixating their gaze on the shoulder of Bottle A than on that of Bottle B. Moreover, participants spent 410.25 ms less fixating on the centre of Bottle A than on the centre of Bottle B. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 9. Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, 36 11 of 17 Beverages 2023, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17 Figure 9. Predictive margins for time spent according to type of bottle and bottle part, with a 95% confidence interval. The interaction of bottle parts and bottle orientation was also significant for TS Figure 9. Predictive margins for time spent according to type of bottle and bottle part, with a 95% Figure 9. Predictive margins for time spent according to type of bottle and bottle part, with a 95% [F(4.46, 0.7436) = 11.55, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. Significant confidence interval. confidence interval. differences were found between the time spent on the shoulder [F(2, 529) = 26.59, p < 0.0001] The and interaction that spen of bottle t on parts the and cen bottle tre [F(2, orientation 529) = was 6.6 also 8, p significant = 0.001].for Sp TS ecifica [F(4.46, lly, on average, The interaction of bottle parts and bottle orientation was also significant for TS 0.7436) = 11.55, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. Significant differences [F(4.46, 0.7436) = 11.55, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment)]. Significant the time spent on the shoulder of the bottle displayed in the vertical orientation was were found between the time spent on the shoulder [F(2, 529) = 26.59, p < 0.0001] and that differences were found between the time spent on the shoulder [F(2, 529) = 26.59, p < 801.96 ms higher than the time spent in the same bottle part of the bottle displayed in the spent on the centre [F(2, 529) = 6.68, p = 0.001]. Specifically, on average, the time spent 0.0001] and that spent on the centre [F(2, 529) = 6.68, p = 0.001]. Specifically, on average, horizontal left orientation (p < 0.0001) and 1118.31 ms higher than the time spent in the on the shoulder of the bottle displayed in the vertical orientation was 801.96 ms higher the time spent on the shoulder of the bottle displayed in the vertical orientation was same bottle part of the bottle displayed in the horizontal right orientation (p < 0.0001). than the time spent in the same bottle part of the bottle displayed in the horizontal left 801.96 ms higher than the time spent in the same bottle part of the bottle displayed in the orientation (p < 0.0001) and 1118.31 ms higher than the time spent in the same bottle part of In the case of the centre of the bottles, there was a significant difference only be- horizontal left orientation (p < 0.0001) and 1118.31 ms higher than the time spent in the the bottle displayed in the horizontal right orientation (p < 0.0001). same bottle part of the bottle displayed in the horizontal right orientation (p < 0.0001). tween the bottles displayed in a vertical orientation and those displayed in a horizontal In the case of the centre of the bottles, there was a significant difference only between In the case of the centre of the bottles, there was a significant difference only be- right orientation (p = 0.001). However, on average, participants spent significantly more the bottles displayed in a vertical orientation and those displayed in a horizontal right tween the bottles displayed in a vertical orientation and those displayed in a horizontal time fixating on the shoulder area of bottles in vertical orientations than on that of those orientation (p = 0.001). However, on average, participants spent significantly more time right orientation (p = 0.001). However, on average, participants spent significantly more fixating on the shoulder area of bottles in vertical orientations than on that of those in in horizontal positions [F(2, 115) = 12.89, p < 0.0001]. Graphic details are presented in time fixating on the shoulder area of bottles in vertical orientations than on that of those horizontal positions [F(2, 115) = 12.89, p < 0.0001]. Graphic details are presented in Figure 10. Figure 10. in horizontal positions [F(2, 115) = 12.89, p < 0.0001]. Graphic details are presented in Figure 10. Figure 10. Predictive margins for time spent according to bottle orientation and part, with a 95% confidence interval. Figure 10. Predictive margins for time spent according to bottle orientation and part, with a 95% Figure 10. Predictive margins for time spent according to bottle orientation and part, with a 95% The different parts of the bottles also had a significant effect on the time participants confidence interval. confidence interval. spent fixating on them [F(2.20, 0.7343) = 53.79, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser ad- The different parts of the bottles also had a significant effect on the time participants spent fixating on them [F(2.20, 0.7343) = 53.79, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser ad- Beverages 2023, 9, 36 12 of 17 The different parts of the bottles also had a significant effect on the time participants spent fixating on them [F(2.20, 0.7343) = 53.79, p < 0.0001 (with Greenhouse–Geisser ad- justment)]. Significant differences were found between the bottle parts [F(3, 572) = 40.20, p < 0.0001]. On average, participants fixated 308.81 ms longer on the shoulder of the bottle than on the top (p = 0.004). Moreover, participants fixated on the centre and the bottom of the bottle, 465.79 ms (p < 0.0001) and 753.01 ms (p < 0.0001), respectively, less than on the top of the bottle. 3.4. The Labelling Effect When incorporating the label with the organic logo into the vertical bottle silhouettes, there were significant differences in the TTFF for bottle parts with the logo [F(3, 161) = 2.91, p = 0.036]. Specifically, there are significant differences in the TTFF between the shoulder area and the central [F(1, 161) = 4.15, p = 0.043] and bottom parts [F(1, 161) = 8.12, p = 0.005]. On average, participants fixated on the centre and bottom of the bottle 1952.29 ms and 2731.40 ms later, respectively. Regarding the time spent, there were no significant differences according to bottle type [F(1, 161) = 0.90, p = 0.345], part [F(3, 161) = 2.45, p = 0.065] or their interaction [F(3, 161) = 1.53, p = 0.208]. The participants’ choice as regards the best bottle part to position the logo was different from the bottle parts they fixated on first or spent more time on. For Bottle A, the preferred location for the logo was the bottom (41.7% of participants), while for Bottle B, it was the central part (33.3%) and the shoulder (29.2%). These choices were also different from the bottles’ most salient areas. 4. Discussion The present study investigates the role of the morphology and anatomy of wine bottles on consumers’ visual attention in a digital context to identify the most prominent bottle parts for labelling in different types of bottles in diverse orientations. Two within-subjects experimental designs, in combination with an eye-tracking device, were implemented to address the main aim. This experimental design helped avoid automatic biases mentioned in previous studies [42]. The combined fixation data of the participants showed that the participants’ attention was initially attracted by the shoulders of the bottles, followed by the tops, the centres and then the bottoms. This pattern was consistent for the bottles and the different orientations in which they were displayed. The different visual saliency of the bottle parts can be the main reason behind these findings. Indeed, the shoulder represents the most relevant shape and salient part in characterising the anatomies of Bottle A and Bottle B (to a lesser degree), as confirmed by the bottle GBVS saliency maps. This is in line with previous research that has concluded that objects with higher saliency are more likely to be fixated on than less salient ones [67–71]. Although there was no significant effect of the type of bottle on the participants’ attention and interest, there was a significant effect of the interaction of the type of bottle and the bottle part. In the case of Bottle A, which had a shorter shoulder with sharply cut lines, participants fixated on this area first and spent more time looking at it. In bottle B, which had a softer, smoother shoulder, participants also focused on this area but spent less time on it and instead spent more time fixating on the centre of Bottle B than on that of Bottle A. This finding may be ascribed to the fact that Bottle A has a more pronounced curve in the anatomy of the shoulder, which would be consistent with previous work showing a preference for curved objects with more sides [29,72]. These results suggest that the shoulder area is the best part to focus consumers’ visual attention and interest in digital contexts, regardless of the bottle type. However, this is particularly true for bottles with a similar morphology to that of Bottle A. There was no significant effect on participants’ attention or interest according to the bottles’ orientation, which is consistent with the results of previous literature [28]. However, there was a significant interaction between the bottles’ orientation and part. Participants Beverages 2023, 9, 36 13 of 17 fixated first and spent more time on the shoulder area of the bottles in a vertical orientation than on those in a horizontal one, highlighting a possible upper attention bias [73]. However, participants moved their visual attention to the central area more quickly when the bottles were displayed in a horizontal orientation as opposed to when displayed vertically. Such behaviour is consistent with the Western reading habit from left to right, resulting in a higher sensitivity to visual elements on the right field [74]. Therefore, when displayed horizontally, participants would move from one part of the bottle to another more quickly. Wine producers and marketers, when selling online, should consider displaying the bottles in an orientation that motivates consumers’ interest and attention to the area in which key information is displayed. For example, if the most determinant labels are displayed at the shoulder of the bottle, the bottle should be presented in a vertical orientation in the online shop. Adding the organic logos to the bottles’ silhouettes provided results for visual attention that were consistent with those obtained from the analysis without the logos. Participants still focused their visual attention first on the logos on the shoulder area and top, followed by those on the centre and bottom. This confirms the importance of the bottles’ anatomy and morphology, as visual attention behaviour was similar in both cases, with and without a logo. Moreover, it stresses the fact that the shoulder of the bottle is critical in obtaining consumers’ visual attention. There were no significant differences in the time spent on the logos placed on different parts of the bottles. Since the logo was the same, the partici- pants did not require additional processing efforts to understand the logo, regardless of its location. Concerning the choice of the best location for the organic logo, the results differed between the two types of bottles. While the bottom area was preferred for Bottle A, the centre and shoulder areas were preferred for Bottle B. The selection of these areas was incompatible with the saliency maps or the areas that obtained consumers’ visual attention or interest. Although the result might seem surprising initially, previous research has already concluded that greater attention only sometimes translates automatically into choice [52,56,57]. Moreover, top–down factors such as consumer involvement, personal goals, previous knowledge, and familiarity might affect participants’ choices [54,75,76]. As these aspects were not included in the study, future research should explore the effect of top–down factors on consumers’ choices and weight compared to the characteristics of the stimuli. These visual attention results can assist in designing wine bottles sold in digital contexts. The present work contributes to the scarce literature on bottle design [19,21] as well as, from a general perspective, on online wine markets [3,10,36,77]. Based on the results of the study, the shoulder area of the bottle receives greater attention from the viewer and is, therefore, potentially relevant as an influence on consumer choice. If these findings can be confirmed in a larger sample, the shoulder areas of bottles can be used to convey important messages about the product the bottles contain. Producers of wine could benefit from placing important certification logos or information in this area to obtain consumers’ attention in online contexts. 5. Conclusions The results of this eye-tracking study provide marketers and beverage companies with food for thought as regards optimising their bottles’ design. Understanding the role of bottle morphology and anatomy in capturing consumer attention and interest when the wine is sold online might allow them to capture consumer attention and interest better, as the bottle is an intrinsic part of the consumer ’s first impression of the wine. The results of this study suggest that the different parts that make up the anatomy of a bottle are not equally relevant and that in the labelling and packaging of wine, much more attention should be devoted to the shoulder. Given the small sample size in laboratory conditions, the results of this study need to be confirmed through further research with bigger samples in real-life settings, as well as in other national contexts. Additionally, other studies can further Beverages 2023, 9, 36 14 of 17 explore the role of other elements (e.g., label colour and content, bottle colours, etc.) in capturing attention and interest and not just in expectations or associations [78,79]. A final caveat is that this study refers to visual stimuli adapted to wine e-commerce and further eye-tracking studies are suggested in a brick-and-mortar supermarket-shelf environment. Author Contributions: This study was based on the collective effort of the authors. Conceptuali- sation, E.O. and R.Z.; Data curation, E.O., B.K. and E.C.D.; Investigation, E.O.; Methodology, E.O. and R.Z.; Supervision, R.Z.; Validation, B.K., E.C.D. and S.N.; Writing—original draft, E.O.; Writing— review and editing, B.K., E.C.D., S.N., F.S. and R.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The dataset is published and accessible at: Ozturk, Emel; Cubero Dudinskaya, Emilia; Kilic, Busra; Mandolesi, Serena; Solfanelli, Francesco; naspetti, simona; Zanoli, Raffaele (2023), “Data for: Ozturk et al. Does the shape and structure of wine bottles influence con- sumer attention online? An eye-tracking study”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/mhm6zgcsc9.2. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Note For the purpose of this study we refer to ‘morphology’ in relation to the overall bottle shape, while by ‘anatomy’ we refer to the shape of the various bottle’s parts. Both morphology and anatomy are elements of the bottle’s design. References 1. Eurostat Online Shopping Ever More Popular. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ ddn-20220202-1 (accessed on 2 December 2022). 2. Eurostat E-Commerce Statistics for Individuals. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php? title=E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals (accessed on 2 December 2022). 3. Jorge, O.; Pons, A.; Rius, J.; Vintr, C. Increasing Online Shop Revenues with Web Scraping: A Case Study for the Wine Sector. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3383–3401. [CrossRef] 4. Mastroberardino, P.; Calabrese, G.; Cortese, F.; Petracca, M. Social Commerce in the Wine Sector: An Exploratory Research Study of the Italian Market. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2024. [CrossRef] 5. IWSR Key Trends Driving the Global Beverage Alcohol Industry in 2022. Available online: https://www.theiwsr.com/key- trends-driving-the-global-beverage-alcohol-industry-in-2022/ (accessed on 2 December 2022). 6. Coppola, D. Wine E-Commerce in Italy—Statistics & Facts. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/9934/wine-e- commerce-in-italy/#topicOverview (accessed on 2 December 2022). 7. Higgins, L.M.; Wolf, M.M.; Bitter, R.; Amspacher, W. Winery Distribution Choices and the Online Wine Buyer. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2015, 46, 1–18. [CrossRef] 8. Limayem, M.; Khalifa, M.; Frini, A. What Makes Consumers Buy from Internet? A Longitudinal Study of Online Shopping. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 2000, 30, 421–432. [CrossRef] 9. Gómez-Carmona, D.; Cruces-Montes, S.; Marín-Dueñas, P.P.; Serrano-Domínguez, C.; Paramio, A.; García, A.Z. Do You See It Clearly? The Effect of Packaging and Label Format on Google Ads. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1648–1666. [CrossRef] 10. Cobelli, N.; Wilkinson, G.; Program, V.; Supagro, M. Online Wine Purchasing: A Comparison between South Africa and Italy. TQM J. 2020, 32, 837–847. [CrossRef] 11. Barber, N.; Almanza, B.A.; Donovan, J.R. Motivational Factors of Gender, Income and Age on Selecting a Bottle of Wine. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2006, 18, 218–232. [CrossRef] 12. Ares, G.; Mawad, F.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A. Influence of Rational and Intuitive Thinking Styles on Food Choice: Preliminary Evidence from an Eye-Tracking Study with Yogurt Labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 28–37. [CrossRef] 13. Thompson-Witrick, K.A.; Pitts, E.R.; Nemenyi, J.L.; Budner, D. The Impact Packaging Type Has on the Flavor of Wine. Beverages 2021, 7, 36. [CrossRef] 14. Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Saltman, Y.; Blanford, J. Message on a Bottle: The Relative Influence of Wine Back Label Information on Wine Choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 22–32. [CrossRef] 15. Chaney, I.M. External Search Effort for Wine. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2000, 12, 5–21. [CrossRef] 16. Chambers, L.; Ells, H.; Yeomans, M.R. Can the Satiating Power of a High Energy Beverage Be Improved by Manipulating Sensory Characteristics and Label Information? Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 271–278. [CrossRef] 17. Kozup, J.; Burton, S.; Greyer, E. A Comparison of Drinkers’ and Nondrinkers’ Responses to Health-Related Information Presented on Wine Beverage Labels. J. Consum. Policy 2001, 24, 209–230. [CrossRef] Beverages 2023, 9, 36 15 of 17 18. Ngo, M.K.; Velasco, C.; Salgado, A.; Boehm, E.; O’Neill, D.; Spence, C. Assessing Crossmodal Correspondences in Exotic Fruit Juices: The Case of Shape and Sound Symbolism. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 361–369. [CrossRef] 19. Arboleda, A.M.; Arce-Lopera, C. The Perceived Sweetness and Price of Bottled Drinks’ Silhouettes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 82, 103867. [CrossRef] 20. Arboleda, A.M.; Arce-Lopera, C. Quantitative Analysis of Product Categorization in Soft Drinks Using Bottle Silhouettes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 1–10. [CrossRef] 21. Rojas, J.-C.; Contero, M.; Naoemi, B.; Jaime, G. Using Combined Bipolar Semantic Scales and Eye-Tracking Metrics to Compare Consumer Perception of Real and Virtual Bottles By. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015, 29, 1047–1056. [CrossRef] 22. Wang, R.W.Y.; Chou, M.C. Differentiation in the Arched Surface of Packaging: Its Influence on the Findability of Logo Typography Displays. Displays 2011, 32, 24–34. [CrossRef] 23. Rundh, B. Packaging Design: Creating Competitive Advantage with Product Packaging. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 988–1002. [CrossRef] 24. Coles, R. Food and Beverage Packaging Technology, 2nd ed.; Coles, R., Kirwan, M., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781405189101. 25. Han, J.W.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Qian, J.P.; Yang, X.T. Food Packaging: A Comprehensive Review and Future Trends. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 860–877. [CrossRef] 26. Wyrwa, J.; Barska, A. Packaging as a Source of Information about Food Products. Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 770–779. [CrossRef] 27. Reimann, M.; Zaichkowsky, J.; Neuhaus, C.; Bender, T.; Weber, B. Aesthetic Package Design: A Behavioral, Neural, and Psychological Investigation. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 431–441. [CrossRef] 28. Laeng, B.; Suegami, T.; Aminihajibashi, S. Wine Labels: An Eye-Tracking and Pupillometry Study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2016, 28, 327–348. [CrossRef] 29. Gislason, S.; Bruhn, S.; Christensen, A.M.; Christensen, M.T.; Hansen, M.G.; Kha, T.T.; Giacalone, D. The Influence of Bottle Design on Perceived Quality of Beer: A Conjoint Analytic Study. Beverages 2020, 6, 64. [CrossRef] 30. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. Packaging and Purchase Decisions: An Exploratory Study on the Impact of Involvement Level and Time Pressure. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 607–628. [CrossRef] 31. Pickering, G.J.; Duben, M.; Kemp, B. The Importance of Informational Components of Sparkling Wine Labels Varies with Key Consumer Characteristics. Beverages 2022, 8, 27. [CrossRef] 32. Lefebvre, S.; Orlowski, M. Can, Cup, or Bottle? The Influence of Beverage Vessel on Taste and Willingness to Pay. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 194–205. [CrossRef] 33. Monteiro, P.; Guerreiro, J.; Loureiro, S.M.C. Understanding the Role of Visual Attention on Wines’ Purchase Intention: An Eye-Tracking Study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2020, 32, 161–179. [CrossRef] 34. Chamorro, A.; García-Gallego, J.M.; Trindade-Carlos, H.d.C. Study on the Importance of Wine Bottle Design on Consumer Choices. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 577–593. [CrossRef] 35. Procidano, I.; Mauracher, C.; Valentini, M. Consumers’ Perception of Prosecco Wine Packaging: A Pilot Study in Padua and Milan. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2021, 23, 1–23. [CrossRef] 36. Pelet, J.É.; Durrieu, F.; Lick, E. Label Design of Wines Sold Online: Effects of Perceived Authenticity on Purchase Intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102087. [CrossRef] 37. Suzianti, A.; Rengkung, S.; Nurtjahyo, B.; Al Rasyid, H. An Analysis of Cognitive-Based Design of Yogurt Product Packaging. Int. J. Technol. 2015, 6, 659–669. [CrossRef] 38. Daugherty, T.; Hoffman, E. EWOM and the Importance of Capturing Consumer Attention within Social Media. J. Mark. Commun. 2013, 20, 82–102. [CrossRef] 39. Pieters, R.; Wedel, M. Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictorial, and Text-Size Effects. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 36–50. [CrossRef] 40. Bojko, A. Eye Tracking the User Experience; Rosenfeld Media: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781933820101. 41. Holmqvist, K.; Nyström, M.; Mulvey, F. Eye Tracker Data Quality: What It Is and How to Measure It. Eye Track. Res. Appl. Symp. 2012, 1, 45–52. [CrossRef] 42. Tatler, B.W. The Central Fixation Bias in Scene Viewing: Selecting an Optimal Viewing Position Independently of Motor Biases and Image Feature Distributions. J. Vis. 2007, 7, 1–17. [CrossRef] 43. Cubero Dudinskaya, E.; Naspetti, S.; Arsenos, G.; Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Latvala, T.; Martin-Collado, D.; Orsini, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Labelling Attributes. Animals 2021, 11, 556. [CrossRef] 44. Murphy, B.; Martini, M.; Fedi, A.; Loera, B.L.; Elliott, C.T.; Dean, M. Consumer Trust in Organic Food and Organic Certifications in Four European Countries. Food Control 2022, 133, 108484. [CrossRef] 45. Baiano, A. An Overview on Sustainability in the Wine Production Chain. Beverages 2021, 7, 15. [CrossRef] 46. Townsend, C.; Kahn, B.E. The “Visual Preference Heuristic”: The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 40, 993–1015. [CrossRef] 47. Jarvis, W.; Mueller, S.; Chiong, K. A Latent Analysis of Images and Words in Wine Choice. Australas. Mark. J. 2010, 18, 138–144. [CrossRef] 48. Goodwin, K.A.; Goodwin, C.J. Research in Psychology: Methods and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. 49. Harel, J.; Koch, C.; Perona, P. Graph-Based Visual Saliency. In the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 4–7 December 2006; pp. 545–552. Beverages 2023, 9, 36 16 of 17 50. Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L. How Important Is Wine Packaging for Consumers? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena, Italy, 17–19 July 2008; p. 19. 51. Merdian, P.; Piroth, P.; Rueger-Muck, E.; Raab, G. Looking behind Eye-Catching Design: An Eye-Tracking Study on Wine Bottle Design Preference. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2021, 33, 134–151. [CrossRef] 52. Milosavljevic, M.; Navalpakkam, V.; Koch, C.; Rangel, A. Relative Visual Saliency Differences Induce Sizable Bias in Consumer Choice. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 67–74. [CrossRef] 53. Bialkova, S.; Sasse, L.; Fenko, A. The Role of Nutrition Labels and Advertising Claims in Altering Consumers’ Evaluation and Choice. Appetite 2016, 96, 38–46. [CrossRef] 54. Bialkova, S.; van Trijp, H. What Determines Consumer Attention to Nutrition Labels? Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1042–1051. [CrossRef] 55. Lohse, G.L. Consumer Eye Movement Patterns on Yellow Pages Advertising. J. Advert. 1997, 26, 61–73. [CrossRef] 56. van der Laan, L.N.; Hooge, I.T.C.; De Ridder, D.T.D.; Viergever, M.A.; Smeets, P.A.M. Do You like What You See? The Role of First Fixation and Total Fixation Duration in Consumer Choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 46–55. [CrossRef] 57. Reutskaja, E.; Nagel, R.; Camerer, C.F.; Rangel, A. Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 900–926. [CrossRef] 58. Orquin, J.L.; Bagger, M.P.; Lahm, E.S.; Grunert, K.G.; Scholderer, J. The Visual Ecology of Product Packaging and Its Effects on Consumer Attention. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 111, 187–195. [CrossRef] 59. Clement, J. Visual Influence on In-Store Buying Decisions: An Eye-Track Experiment on the Visual Influence of Packaging Design. J. Mark. Manag. 2007, 23, 917–928. [CrossRef] 60. Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Velasco, C.; Salgado-Montejo, A.; Spence, C. Using Combined Eye Tracking and Word Association in Order to Assess Novel Packaging Solutions: A Case Study Involving Jam Jars. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 328–338. [CrossRef] 61. Li, Q.; Huang, Z.J.; Christianson, K. Visual Attention toward Tourism Photographs with Text: An Eye-Tracking Study. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 243–258. [CrossRef] 62. Calbi, M.; Langiulli, N.; Siri, F.; Umiltà, M.A.; Gallese, V. Visual Exploration of Emotional Body Language: A Behavioural and Eye-Tracking Study. Psychol. Res. 2021, 85, 2326–2339. [CrossRef] 63. Hervet, G.; Guérard, K.; Tremblay, S.; Chtourou, M.S. Is Banner Blindness Genuine? Eye Tracking Internet Text Advertising. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2011, 25, 708–716. [CrossRef] 64. Geisser, S.; Greenhouse, S.W. An Extension of Box’s Results on the Use of the F Distribution in Multivariate Analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 1958, 29, 885–891. [CrossRef] 65. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022. 66. Revelle, W. Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research 2022, Version 2.2.9; Northwestern University: Evanston, IL, USA, 2022. 67. Peschel, A.O.; Orquin, J.L.; Mueller Loose, S. Increasing Consumers’ Attention Capture and Food Choice through Bottom-up Effects. Appetite 2019, 132, 1–7. [CrossRef] 68. Orquin, J.L.; Mueller Loose, S. Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making. Acta Psychol. 2013, 144, 190–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Proi, M.; Dudinskaya, E.C.; Naspetti, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. The Role of Eco-Labels in Making Environmentally Friendly Choices: An Eye-Tracking Study on Aquaculture Products with Italian Consumers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4659. [CrossRef] 70. Kovacevi ˇ c, ´ D.; Brozovic, ´ M.; Možina, K. Do Prominent Warnings Make Packaging Less Attractive? Saf. Sci. 2018, 110, 336–343. [CrossRef] 71. Rramani, Q.; Krajbich, I.; Enax, L.; Brustkern, L.; Weber, B. Salient Nutrition Labels Shift Peoples’ Attention to Healthy Foods and Exert More Influence on Their Choices. Nutr. Res. 2020, 80, 106–116. [CrossRef] 72. Cotter, K.N.; Silvia, P.J.; Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Vartanian, O. Curve Appeal: Exploring Individual Differences in Preference for Curved versus Angular Objects. I-perception 2017, 8, 2041669517693023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 73. Nicholls, M.E.R.; Smith, A.; Mattingley, J.B.; Bradshaw, J.L. The Effect of Body and Environment-Centred Coordinates on Free-Viewing Perceptual Asymmetries for Vertical and Horizontal Stimuli. Cortex 2006, 42, 336–346. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 74. Rima, S.; Kerbyson, G.; Jones, E.; Schmid, M.C. Advantage of Detecting Visual Events in the Right Hemifield Is Affected by Reading Skill. Vis. Res. 2020, 169, 41–48. [CrossRef] 75. Duerrschmid, K.; Danner, L. Eye Tracking in Consumer Research. In Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 2: Alternative Approaches and Special Applications; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; Volume 2, ISBN 9780081017432. 76. Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Bruzzone, F.; Vidal, L.; Antúnez, L.; Maiche, A. Consumer Visual Processing of Food Labels: Results from an Eye-Tracking Study. J. Sens. Stud. 2013, 28, 138–153. [CrossRef] 77. Bodini, A.; Zanoli, R. Competitive Factors of the Agro-Food E-Commerce. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2011, 17, 241–260. [CrossRef] Beverages 2023, 9, 36 17 of 17 78. Spence, C.; Wan, X. Beverage Perception and Consumption: The Influence of the Container on the Perception of the Contents. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 131–140. [CrossRef] 79. Spence, C.; Ngo, M.K. Assessing the Shape Symbolism of the Taste, Flavour, and Texture of Foods and Beverages. Flavour. 2012, 1, 12. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png
Beverages
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/message-in-a-bottle-an-exploratory-study-on-the-role-of-wine-bottle-dNobD9cKLo